At least for now, I skipped to the last segment. Would McCain appoint hard-right Supreme Court justices? Well, depending on how one defines so inherently vague a term, yes and no. But realistically, no - at least, no more than Obama would appoint "hard-left Supreme Court justices" (he may be stupid enough to associate with Bill Ayers, but not to appoint him to the court). The term is meant to be caustic and pejorative, not to facilitate meaningful discussion or realistic assesments. It's a conceit, a way of announcing Rachel's Goodthinker clan affiliation. Even saying that you want right wing vs. left wing justices isn't that helpful - do you mean law and order conservatives? Legal process conservatives? That difference matters in some truly important cases, such as Apprendi and its progeny, or the punitive damages cases. So the labels are of limited use as an abstraction or a shorthand, but it's not helpful.

I take McCain at his word: he will look for judges like Bill Rehnquist and John Roberts. I don't regard that as ideal - I'm more of a textualist, and, frankly, more of a judicial interventionist than either of them - but it's certainly an okay result, and far better than the unfettered Brennanites we can expect Obama to look for.

Did I hear Rachel correctly when she said that being Pro-Life is not a choice? Only being Pro-Choice is a valid choice? Stack up the Animal Farm references; You have freedom to choose...until you choose wrongly! Then you do not!

Sklar seems sort of preppy paleo-lib. She didn't really engage you about Gov. Palin, because she had to set Whiney Hillary Deflectors to maximum, and when after several attempts by you to bring it back to Palin, she deemed unfit for commentary due to her abortion position!

And analogizing you to Chris Matthews! What, a Goebels analogy just didn't come to the tongue quick enough?

Oh it's nothing personal, really. Just ambitious young New York media types gross me out. That sort of conspiratorial assumption that their insular little world is unquestionably important and their provincial world-view is unquestionably correct. These kind of people. Celebrities. Billionaires. Stupid men with stupid glasses. The stink of trust funds. The complicit sneer of Gawker. I find it all very off-putting.

(Some of us have to do that whenever we see her name. It's better than "Khan". If I write a Sci-Fi novel with a villain, his--or her--name will be SKLAR!)

As much as I hate to fawn I have to say that, while I think Sklar is quite good-looking, you, Ms. A, are astoundingly photogenic. And so very at-ease relative to Rachel S.

Other than that, she seems to be the sort of person who is uncomfortable talking about politics with someone who's not in the club. McCain's writing in code words? I don't think that's going to sell him with the -cons, be they neo- or paleo- or whatever.

I thought her digs against Alito and Roberts were worth challenging. And I thought it was telling that she didn't care to address the Constitutionality of the Roe decision. But then, outcome is all that matters right?

I mean, Garance was awful but that episode at least had the marvelous pay-off of watching her get smacked down. And Jonah Goldberg was blustery and insufferable but, again, it was fun watching him turn bright pink.

This is the first blogingheads that I couldn't listen to in 1.4x speed. I need that speed to get through. I can usually understand you but not her this time.

I agree that she just turned aside anything you raised about Palin through her "pro-choice" deflector shield. But it didn't help that you tried to contrast Palin to Hillary instead of concentrating on her innate hotness and babeness.

Have you switched to CFC's at your house? Maybe you should try a warmer tone, not so much overhead, next time.

As a (sometime) Canadian, I recognize the moralizing smugness that comes with my nationality. (And the failure to recognize that there can be another legitimate side to an argument.)

I think that John McCain would be another George H.W. Bush as president. Whether that qualifies as "hard-right" in terms of policy direction or appointments depends on one's position. (Conservatives will think he's a liberal; liberals will want to charge him with war crimes.)

Amba: To be fair, I specifically told her to feel free to interrupt me (which I say to all my partners). As for dark lipstick... I'm not seeing it on my computer. Maybe it's your settings. I wasn't wearing dark lipstick.

Palladian, that's fighting talk. The Althouse-Goldberg diavlog was and remains the best. Concededly I haven't watched it in a while, but to my recollection, it covered a lot of ground, and they went at it on an important topic. It was bare-knuckle, it was passionate, and it was thrilling. More please.

Sklar seems personal and pleasant and I'd have her over for a scotch and soda anytime.

But what a bore (politically speaking). Every time Althouse tried to say something interesting or approach things from a new angle she'd damp it down with her standard issue Huff puff talking points.

Does any honest person think McCain is "hard right" or that Hillary became a Senator on her own because of her brilliance or that Hagee and Wright are equal in importance and influence on the candidates?

I love Althouse being so visual. But this is the first Althouse BHTV I had to skip through at 1.4x.

MM, I'm pretty confident that people of that sort don't know Wisconsin from Minnesota, never mind one town from another.

Eh. New York. I fly over it sometimes, shiver, and hope I have have to spend time in that godawful mess of a place. It's some sort of, I don't know, "flyover country." You fly over it on your way to somewhere interesting. Not for long, of course; give it time and global warming will deal with it, I'm told (curiously enough, by people who live in New York; I guess they don't believe it!).